Registration and Serialization

wcorey said:
Couldn’t it be argued that since it wasn’t a firearm previously by mass definition then it wasn’t legally possessed on 8/1 ‘as a firearm’ and only became one post grandfathering?
Or does the 2”x4”x6’ slab of 7075 I owned on 8/1 potentially count as a bunch of grandfathered lowers?
Click to expand...
Because they include unfinished frames and receivers as firearms then your raw materials could be considered exempt unfinished receivers if you had the capability to finish into a frame or receiver and held the material on 8/1 - this would be something a court would need to decide and likely wouldn't fly.

The argument that it wasn't a firearm before so it wasn't isn't exempt per 131M, one must look at the text.
The text is written in the present tense and uses the current definitions to look into the past.
The text calls out the current definition of ASF which only has meaning in the present - therefore taking the current definition and applying to objects in the past you define what items would be subject to the exemption. If the item was banned under the previous law then it wasn't lawfully possessed. If it was allowed under the past law but is now considered an ASF then one must use the current definition of ASF, and therefore firearm, to see if the item would be banned now if not exempted by possession on 8/1.

By trying to avoid a taking for the expanded features ban, they inadvertently exempted a massive number of stripped and unfinished frames/receivers.
 
Reptile said:
Oh ok.

So this law sections you quoted are for the future?

So prior to the new law it does not matter?

I thought it was an interpretation of the past laws and grandfathering.

Well, whey didn't you say that?

Good Lord, I'm just trying to understand this.

You don't have to be mean.
Click to expand...

Dude, f*ck off.
 
Reptile said:
@Drix

"If you have not read it yet:

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html and click "Q+A" tab. This should explain your NEW AWB INTERPRETATION questions."


That link was up since 2016.
It is not a FAQ for the NEW 4885 law.

I'm sure they will create a new FAQ for for 4885, soon.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good but the state admits it's own death knell in that proclamation

Despite the law, an estimated 10,000 copycat assault weapons had been sold in Massachusetts in 2015.
Click to expand...
By their own admission the banned arms are in common use under Caetano and Bruen.

And it still didn't have force of law since the text of the Mass Assault Weapons Ban was a copy of the federal ban - by copying it verbatim it accepted the case law surrounding the interpretation of what constituted an AW.
 
GOALJim said:
We revised and cleaned up our summaries on registration and serialization today. We will continue to try to bring as much clarity as we can to this garbage. To a great extent, the incredibly poor drafting of the Chapter 135, whether intentional or just incompetence, makes it incredibly difficult at best.

Also, I am aware that some folks get angry and accuse us of overreaction. To that, our job is to provide the 2A community with the worst case scenario. Then it is up to individuals to determine their level of risk tolerance. Keep in mind, we have a rogue Governor and Attorney General in Massachusetts.

www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Mr. Wallace--how exactly do you expect to accomplish that?

Why is there all of this dicking around as to what the law "might" or "might NOT" mean?

All laws are written with legislative INTENT, correct?

The people who WROTE the law were actually trying to accomplish something, correct?

Can they not be forced to say it aloud, in plain English? I'd like to hear it said aloud, instead of all the delusional NES retardery (Now we get to unpin our stocks hurrrrrrrrrrr!).

Why doesn't someone (GOAL? COMM 2A?) with access to the handful of legislators (?) who actually WROTE the law (?) ask those individuals to EXPLAIN their legislative intent in plain English, ask those specific individuals what they were trying to accomplish so gun owners in MA can understand exactly what (in THEIR legal opinion) IS and IS NOT illegal? Request that each of them, as a matter of responsible governance, respond in plain English (and preferably in writing) to the following simple questions:

IF a firearms owner with a valid LTC is in possession of a semiautomatic AR15 rifle which was purchased AFTER 9/94, is that person in your view ILLEGALLY in posession of that firearm, and THEREFORE a criminal who can (and should) be lawfully punished by the State--Yes or No?

IF a firearms owner with a valid LTC has a semiautomatic AR15 rifle which was lawfully purchased as a frame or receiver AFTER 2016 but BEFORE 8/1, and subsequently assembled and reported to the State via FA10--is THAT person in your view ILLEGALLY in possession of that firearm, and THEREFORE a criminal who can (and should) be lawfully punished by the State--Yes or No?

Then go down the f***ing list or relevant questions and ask that these questions be answered clearly and unequivocally.

How is this NOT their obligation as lawmakers?

If they WON'T answer them, if they refuse to answer them, then you have a clear point of legal defense for every gun owner in MA--am I wrong? The firearms owners of MA petitioned them for legal clarification, and they REFUSED to clarify.

You also have something to actually talk about to the media--their refusal to clarify the precise meaning of their laws.
 
Last edited:
Warm_Garand said:
With all due respect, Mr. Wallace--how exactly do you expect to accomplish that?

Why is there all of this dicking around as to what the law "might" or "might NOT" mean?

All laws are written with legislative INTENT, correct?

The people who WROTE the law were actually trying to accomplish something, correct?

Can they not be forced to say it aloud, in plain English? I'd like to hear it said aloud, instead of all the delusional NES retardery (Now we get to unpin our stocks hurrrrrrrrrrr!)

Why doesn't someone (GOAL? COMM 2A?) with access to the handful of legislators (?) who actually WROTE the law (?) ask those individuals to EXPLAIN their legislative intent in plain English, ask those specific individuals what they were trying to accomplish so gun owners in MA can understand exactly what IS and IS NOT illegal? Request that each of them, as a matter of responsible governance, respond in plain English (and preferably in writing) to the following simple questions:

IF a firearms owner with a valid LTC is in possession of a semiautomatic AR15 rifle which was purchased AFTER 9/94, is that person in your view ILLEGALLY in posession of that firearm, and THEREFORE a criminal who can (and should) be lawfully punished by the State--Yes or No?

IF a firearms owner with a valid LTC has a semiautomatic AR15 rifle which was lawfully purchased as a frame or receiver AFTER 2016 but BEFORE 8/1, and subsequently assembled and reported to the State via FA10--is THAT person in your view ILLEGALLY in possession of that firearm, and THEREFORE a criminal who can (and should) be lawfully punished by the State--Yes or No?

Then go down the f***ing list or relevant questions and ask that these questions be answered clearly and unequivocally.

How is this NOT their obligation as lawmakers?

If they WON'T answer them, if they refuse to answer them, then you have a clear point of legal defense for every gun owner in MA--am I wrong? The firearms owners of MA petitioned them for legal clarification, and they REFUSED to clarify.

You also have something to actually talk about to the media--their refusal to clarify the precise meaning of their laws.
Click to expand...
You assume those that wrote the law and therefore know the intent are part of the General Court - for the most part the bill shows massive outside influence.
Secondarily, those that did the final rewrite into 4885 had little to no knowledge of the subject that they were legislating therefore they cannot clearly define their intent because they only knew talking points explaining each section.
For those of us that went and asked a series of pointed questions the intent could be extracted - they intended to ban any semiautomatic long gun possible and make the rest of all firearms as difficult to purchase, possess and carry as possible in order to reduce the number of legally owned firearms. They were very aware that the laws on the books were plenty to disarm criminals if actually enforced - this wasn't an effort to reduce violent crime.
 
pastera said:
You assume those that wrote the law and therefore know the intent are part of the General Court - for the most part the bill shows massive outside influence.
Secondarily, those that did the final rewrite into 4885 had little to no knowledge of the subject that they were legislating therefore they cannot clearly define their intent because they only knew talking points explaining each section.
For those of us that went and asked a series of pointed questions the intent could be extracted - they intended to ban any semiautomatic long gun possible and make the rest of all firearms as difficult to purchase, possess and carry as possible in order to reduce the number of legally owned firearms. They were very aware that the laws on the books were plenty to disarm criminals if actually enforced - this wasn't an effort to reduce violent crime.
Click to expand...

I understand that the legislators who drafted the law were mostly incompetent, and that most of those who ultimately voted to enact the law had absolutely no clue as to what they were doing. I also understand that THEY think that they have a right to ban semiautomatic firearms. I just want to hear them say it aloud.

Basically I want to hear them say aloud that I am a criminal who can (and should) be lawfully punished by the State.

It just lets me know exactly where I stand. Not that I don't already know--but now, in conversations with other gun owners all vagaries and imprecisions are dispelled. There is value in that.

Thank you for all of your excellent work/analysis, BTW.
 
The best way to interpret these new laws is not living in a state led by people who continue to push this garbage.

They want your guns and men can have babies. Get a clue, gentlemen.
 
milktree said:
Look, I get that you want to provide a conservative interpretation that if followed will be least likely to get people in trouble.

But you should say that explicitly. What you're doing is providing an interpretation as being the only one, without context.

This is misleading at best.

If you want to give a worst case interpretation, that's fine, as long as you label it as such and not present it as the ONE TRUTH, because it's not.

example: all the 7/20/16 bullshit. We know what the legislature probably wanted to do, but what they actually wrote provides two options:

- Only pre 9/14/94 "assault-style firearms" are legal
- Anything lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 is legal.

There are no other options. Despite the absurd "copies and duplicates" language in H.4885, either the AG's rant in '16 is legally binding (nothing is legal, despite the AG's promise to not prosecute), or it's not, and everything that wasn't an "assault weapon" under the 1998 law was legally possessed, and therefore grandfathered.
Click to expand...

Goal gets caught up on this phrase (bolded above). The fact that 7/20/16 is in the new law and nothing purchased, owned and registered (sure, we didnt have registration under the old law) is not a copy or duplicate. They act like this language means something. I BEG them to please give me one case where a gun that benefits from not being a copy or duplicate is not otherwise an assault style firearm under the new law (ok, I can come up with some truly degenerate cases, but nothing meaningful). All that matters under the new law is 8/1.

lawfully possessed on 8/1. 7/20/16 was NOT part of the old law and the new law had not taken effect yet. So 7/20/16 is not a date ANYWHERE in MGL or the CMRs. How can 7/20/16 effect lawfully possessed on 8/1? If your premise is that Healey's guidance was truth then its not before 7/20/16, its ON 7/20/16 but even that does not matter. She said ALL post 9/13/94 were copies or duplicates and she was just choosing to not prosecute. So they were NOT lawfully possessed on 8/1. BE CONSISTENT, PLEASE.

So as @milktree says, you have two choices. all 8/1 guns are legal or all 13-sep-1994 guns are legal but 7/20/16 does not play. So worst case, all manufactured after 9/13/94 are illegal. 7/20/16 is Guida or some other terrible lawyers white whale issue. Stop propagating it.

My issue is not with the fact that Goal acts like 7/20/16 is a meaningful date (ok, I have that issue too). My real issue is that you are NOT CONSISTENT. There is no logical reading of the old law, Healey guidance and the new law that causes 7/20/16 to have any actual effect on legality. None.

@GOALJim
 
CrackPot said:
Goal gets caught up on this phrase (bolded above). The fact that 7/20/16 is in the new law and nothing purchased, owned and registered (sure, we didnt have registration under the old law) is not a copy or duplicate. They act like this language means something. I BEG them to please give me one case where a gun that benefits from not being a copy or duplicate is not otherwise an assault style firearm under the new law (ok, I can come up with some truly degenerate cases, but nothing meaningful). All that matters under the new law is 8/1.

lawfully possessed on 8/1. 7/20/16 was NOT part of the old law and the new law had not taken effect yet. So 7/20/16 is not a date ANYWHERE in MGL or the CMRs. How can 7/20/16 effect lawfully possessed on 8/1? If your premise is that Healey's guidance was truth then its not before 7/20/16, its ON 7/20/16 but even that does not matter. She said ALL post 9/13/94 were copies or duplicates and she was just choosing to not prosecute. So they were NOT lawfully possessed on 8/1. BE CONSISTENT, PLEASE.

So as @milktree says, you have two choices. all 8/1 guns are legal or all 13-sep-1994 guns are legal but 7/20/16 does not play. So worst case, all manufactured after 9/13/94 are illegal. 7/20/16 is Guida or some other terrible lawyers white whale issue. Stop propagating it.

My issue is not with the fact that Goal acts like 7/20/16 is a meaningful date (ok, I have that issue too). My real issue is that you are NOT CONSISTENT. There is no logical reading of the old law, Healey guidance and the new law that causes 7/20/16 to have any actual effect on legality. None.

@GOALJim
Click to expand...
Has goal actually replied to anything or do they just make an initial post and leave?

Or is he on another account
 
AJK129 said:
Has goal actually replied to anything or do they just make an initial post and leave?

Or is he on another account
Click to expand...
They don't engage. I reached out to Goal via email and through various back channels to try and get them to engage and let me participate/help in their analysis. This was back when we had competing bills from the house and senate and they were not doing a good job understanding the totality of what each bill did.

They declined to respond to any attempt at engagement. Zero response. Their ability to read the law has not improved since that time.
 
GOALJim said:
We revised and cleaned up our summaries on registration and serialization today. We will continue to try to bring as much clarity as we can to this garbage. To a great extent, the incredibly poor drafting of the Chapter 135, whether intentional or just incompetence, makes it incredibly difficult at best.

Also, I am aware that some folks get angry and accuse us of overreaction. To that, our job is to provide the 2A community with the worst case scenario. Then it is up to individuals to determine their level of risk tolerance. Keep in mind, we have a rogue Governor and Attorney General in Massachusetts.

www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Better to overreact that just sit back and watch stuff happen to you.
 
I sold 2 "asf" pistols, that were legally possessed on 8/1/24, last week and efa10'd them per the purchaser's request (my other offer was a simple efa10). Ill let everyone know when the law comes for me.
 
DJBrad said:
Talk to your lawyer. That’s what the FRB will
tell you.
Click to expand...
What does THAT mean? Like people just have a lawyer hanging around their kitchen on contingency, waiting for something to do?
Are they saying to file a lawsuit against the state? I give up, you tell us.


Reptile said:
So this law sections you quoted are for the future?
Click to expand...
Yes. Haven't you heard of "FUTURE LAW"? [rofl]
Maybe it comes with one of those "just in case lawyers". [rofl][rofl][rofl]


Dench said:
The best way to interpret these new laws is not living in a state led by people who continue to push this garbage.
They want your guns and men can have babies. Get a clue, gentlemen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you know what? It will come to the next state, and the next one after that, and eventually YOUR state also. Can't keep running.


CrackPot said:
7/20/16 was NOT part of the old law and the new law had not taken effect yet. So 7/20/16 is not a date ANYWHERE in MGL or the CMRs.
Click to expand...
True. Non-law then, and now. You're saying it STILL isn't in the law anywhere? The way everyone is talking, I thought it was. Going to have to go and read the current law.


CrackPot said:
My real issue is that you are NOT CONSISTENT. There is no logical reading of the old law, Healey guidance and the new law that causes 7/20/16 to have any actual effect on legality. None.
Click to expand...
Amen. See previous comments just above this one.
 
citoriguy said:
Rogue governor and AG?

It’s not rogue when all the other morons on Beacon Hill act the same way. Talk about needing to drain the swamp (marsh??)!
Click to expand...
I know the Civil War pretty much settled that states can't secede, Constitution be damned, but is there any obligation for the state to maintain their organization (their own Constitution) exactly as it at the start?

In other words, I see no reason the Federal government would be either interested or have any say in the matter if the citizens of some state gathered together and overthrew the State government but remained within the US as that state, just with different warlords.

Yeah, I get that it will never happen and it would be uglier than words. Setting that aside, would the Federales really care or have lawful means to intervene?

wtf is in that Sailor Joe's bottle anyway?
 
Drix said:
You keep pointing to stuff that was defined differently before the new law passed.
Click to expand...
Yes, because I thought the old “guidance” mattered at the time I posted those comments.

Now, the 8/1 date is all that matters.
According to Pastera. He is providing more information that Goal is.

It would be nice to get something official from the state, though.
 
BroncoAZ said:
View attachment 929502
Click to expand...

C'mon. It looks like he's trying. LOL


This law is going to be a cluster for a LONG time. As I may have mentioned a few weeks ago, the state had a seminar for LEO's - and THEY couldn't answer most of the questions relating to how this is going to fall out. Especially around registration.
 
Dennis in MA said:
C'mon. It looks like he's trying. LOL


This law is going to be a cluster for a LONG time. As I may have mentioned a few weeks ago, the state had a seminar for LEO's - and THEY couldn't answer most of the questions relating to how this is going to fall out. Especially around registration.
Click to expand...
Was that "the state", or the seminar offered by Chief (ret) Glidden's LE training company.
 
Dennis in MA said:
C'mon. It looks like he's trying. LOL


This law is going to be a cluster for a LONG time. As I may have mentioned a few weeks ago, the state had a seminar for LEO's - and THEY couldn't answer most of the questions relating to how this is going to fall out. Especially around registration.
Click to expand...
Registration is going to be such a cluster f*ck. Specially the part about remembering the purchase date and FFL. Good luck getting that right.
 
Is there an unknown option? I would assume if we guess it's a crime. I can remember zero purchase dates other than the gallon of gas I bought this morning for my lawnmower. This reminds me of when I had my license plate stolen, the DMV would do nothing without a police report and the police would do nothing without a date, time and location. Basically forced into filing a false police report. I filled it out for the exact date and time and location of the where I was standing at the Plainville MA police department and I think I signed it under duress.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
You're going to jail now and I'm going to buy that ruckus at a police auction and drive it with my 2 hands in the air shouting "I'm on top of the world!"

View attachment 930588
Click to expand...
If this law is going to be a disaster for years, I don’t think there will be any penalty for not registering.

Years from now, who will even remember all the details.

I think they just have to give a free pass for non compliance.
 
Reptile said:
So an AR15 stripped lower is an "unfinished receiver"?
Click to expand...
Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016

A stripped lower is a "frame or receiver"
"Unfinished receiver" refers to so-called 80% receivers
 
Back
Top Bottom